Of unknown origin, Cole should not be confused with Richard Cole, secretary to lord president Huntingdon.
Cole’s service as a lobbyist began in 1591, when he was one of four townsmen ordered to travel to London to obtain a lease of Thomas Wilkes’s† monopoly of Hull’s salt supply. In the event he was dropped from the delegation which concluded the deal, but his consent was still required because the loan was secured by a mortgage on the corporation manor of Newbiggin, then leased to Cole and John Aldred†.
Cole’s disagreement with the corporation was finally laid to rest in March 1604, when he delivered to the town’s governors the title deeds for an almshouse endowed by his late brother-in-law, Alderman Gee. Four days later he was again returned to Parliament.
Cole’s chief interest in 1606 was a bill to revive an Elizabethan Privy Seal discounting the customs on cloth exports from York, Newcastle and Hull. All three towns probably co-operated to draft the bill, which was reported on 5 Mar. by the York MP Christopher Brooke. Cole was not individually named to the committee, but was entitled to sit as a burgess for a port town (17 Feb.), and he enthusiastically reported its progress in a letter to Hull on 10 Mar.:
it hath been twice read, committed and now engrossed, and if time will serve I do mean to call tomorrow [for it] to be put to the question [for the third reading]. I do make no doubt but it will pass our House, for the King’s Majesty hath willed us to set down our grievances.
Although no third reading is recorded, the bill was completed and sent up to the Lords three days later. Cole may have attended the Lords’ committee in person, as lord treasurer Dorset (Thomas Sackville†) was instructed to invite ‘such merchants or others ... meet to be heard concerning this bill’. On sending a copy of the committee list to the corporation, Cole insisted that ‘as yet we can do no more if our lives did [re]ly of [sic] it’. Objections from other ports presumably overwhelmed the bill, as it was never reported.
Cole’s letters to the corporation in 1606 included general news: he recounted how ‘we sat dismayed in the Parliament House and did nothing’ when a false report of the king’s assassination arrived on 22 March. He also relayed the vote of 18 Mar., which gave the king three subsidies and six fifteenths, omitting any mention of the closeness of the initial vote to increase the supply agreed on 10 February. Aware that the grant might be considered over-generous, he cited the magnitude of the king’s debts, observed that the first subsidy was earmarked for repayment of the Privy Seal loans of 1604-6, and resolved to seek a share of the rebate mentioned in the bill preamble: ‘I know our town is poor and hath twice been visited with the plague. If we may get certificate I hope we shall have aid’. Finally, he discussed legislation which appealed to the godly sympathies of the corporation, promising to send a copy of ‘the articles (some 22) that are agreed upon to frame two bills against the traitorous recusants’ in the aftermath of Gunpowder Plot. He also recounted ‘divers good bills put in to try against swearing, against drunkenness and against profaning the Sabbath, for a learned ministry and against good men deprived’, asking that these be mentioned to Thomas Whincop, the town preacher, and adding ‘I pray God they may take effect’.
The ‘Mr. Cole’ named to the committee for the bill to clarify the 1604 Tanners’ Act on 9 Dec. 1606 could have been the Hull MP, but it seems likely that Cole never actually attended the third session. In his will of 13 Jan. 1607, Cole settled his property upon his wife and son, and left 20s. to Mr. Whincop. He was buried in Holy Trinity a week later. Probate was granted to his brother-in-law Walter Jobson and his nephew Sir William Gee* on 18 February. His son pursued an academic career, initially under Salisbury’s patronage. No subsequent member of the family sat in Parliament.
